minutes - Michigancouncil.legislature.mi.gov/Content/Files/cjpc... · The Chair read Recommendation #1 and asked if there was a motion to accept the recommendation. Mr. Kaminski made

final minutes

Criminal Justice Policy Commission Meeting

9:00 a.m. • Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Senate Appropriations Room • 3rd Floor State Capitol Building

100 N. Capitol Avenue • Lansing, MI

Members Present: Members Excused: Senator Bruce Caswell, Chair Senator Patrick Colbeck Stacia Buchanan Senator Bert Johnson Representative Vanessa Guerra Sheriff Lawrence Stelma D. J. Hilson Judge Paul Stutesman Kyle Kaminski Sheryl Kubiak Barbara Levine Sarah Lightner Laura Moody Jennifer Strange

Andrew Verheek Judge Raymond Voet Representative Michael Webber I. Call to Order and Roll Call The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The Chair asked the clerk to take the roll. A quorum was present and absent members were excused. II. Approval of the August 5, 2015 CJPC Meeting Minutes The Chair asked for a motion to approve the August 5, 2015 Criminal Justice Policy Commission meeting minutes. Mr. Hilson moved, supported by Mr. Verheek, that the minutes of the August 5, 2015 Criminal Justice Policy Commission meeting as proposed be approved. There was no objection. The motion was approved by unanimous consent. III. Overview of Judicial Data Warehouse The Chair commented on the approach he thinks the Commission needs to use to be successful in providing good, solid information and recommendations to the Michigan Legislature. He then welcomed Kristen Pawlowski, Project Manager of Optum, and Joseph Baumann, General Counsel for the Michigan Supreme Court, and thanked them for presenting information on the Judicial Date Warehouse. A question and answer period followed. Details of the presentation are attached to these minutes. IV. Presentation by Jerry Jung, Chair of the State Transportation Commission; David Phillips, Assistant Professor of Economics at Hope College; Alex Rasmussen, President of Oak Adaptive Software; and Bob Bartlett, President of Michigan Colleges Alliance The Chair welcomed the next presenters and thanked them for providing information to the Commission regarding an innovative project they have been working on which involved a data-driven evaluation of sentencing in Michigan. A question and answer period followed. Details of the presentation are attached to these minutes. V. Proposed Recommendations The Chair had proposed the following recommendations: 1. It is recommended by the Criminal Justice Policy Commission that sentencing guidelines be kept as the best method

for reducing disparity and increasing sentence predictability while continuing to be transparent. The current guidelines have reduced sentence disparities and increased predictability across the state since their adoption. More work remains to decrease disparities and increase predictability.

2. In order to properly inform the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Policy Commission, it is necessary to build a

robust centralized data collection system. The Commission believes that data must be collected from prisons, jails, probation departments, parole systems, community corrections, courts, juvenile justice, law enforcement arrest data, and specialty courts. The building of this system should meet the requirements of the Headlee amendment. Information in this system must be accessible by the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Supreme Court Administrators Office, and other pertinent entities. Based on this information, we respectfully encourage the legislature to review the data when formulating new criminal justice legislation.

Final CJPC Meeting Minutes September 2, 2015 Page 2 3. The Criminal Justice Policy Commission recommends that for initial purposes of the commission recidivism will be

defined as the return of an individual to prison within three years after he or she is released either with a new sentence or as a technical violator of parole conditions, or as non-compliance that results in incarceration during the probation period or conviction of a new felony offense while serving a probation sentence. As more data becomes available to the commission from recommendation two, it will be necessary to revisit this definition to fully comply with our charge under the law. If data is submitted to the commission it must meet the standards of this definition or clearly state that it does not. If it does not then it should be clearly stated to the commission what recidivism standard is being met for the data.

VI. Proposed Vote on Proposed Recommendations The Chair read Recommendation #1 and asked if there was a motion to accept the recommendation. Mr. Kaminski made a motion, supported by Ms. Strange, to accept the recommendation. The Chair asked if there was any discussion. Ms. Levine proposed additional language to the recommendation and made a motion, which was supported by Ms. Kubiak, to add “insuring proportionality” in the first sentence after “disparity” and to add “insure proportionality” in the last sentence, after “disparities”. A discussion of the amendment followed.

Ms. Moody expressed concern that the language of the amendment assumes that the Commission has already decided that we have unacceptable disparity in the current sentencing scheme and she is not ready to make that determination until the data comes. Mr. Hilson agreed. Ms. Levine added that she is unclear as to why the Commission is making a recommendation at this point and offered different language to address Ms. Moody’s concerns. After further discussion, Ms. Levine withdrew her motion to amend the recommendation. Mr. Kaminski withdrew his motion to accept the recommendation. Chairman Caswell noted that he will ask members to review the recommendation again and submit feedback over the next month. The Chair read Recommendation #2 and asked if there was a motion to accept the recommendation. Ms. Levine made a motion, supported by Judge Voet, to accept the recommendation. The Chair asked if there was any discussion. Ms. Lightner moved an amendment, supported by Mr. Hilson, to delete the word “should” in the third sentence, after “system” and add the word “must” to read as follows: “The building of this system must meet the requirements of the Headlee amendment.” There was no further discussion on the amendment. The motion prevailed by unanimous consent. Yeas—12 Senator Caswell Ms. Lightner

Representative Guerra Ms. Moody Mr. Hilson Ms. Strange Mr. Kaminski Mr. Verheek Ms. Kubiak Judge Voet Ms. Levine Representative Webber Nays—0 Ms. Kubiak asked for clarification with regard to the word used in the recommendation to describe the need for a robust centralized data collection system. A discussion followed. Mr. Hilson moved, supported by Ms. Levine, to delete the word “build” in the first sentence and add the word “have” to read as follows: “In order to properly inform the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Policy Commission, it is necessary to have a robust centralized data collection system.” There was no further discussion on the amendment. The motion prevailed by unanimous consent. Yeas—12 Senator Caswell Ms. Lightner Representative Guerra Ms. Moody Mr. Hilson Ms. Strange Mr. Kaminski Mr. Verheek Ms. Kubiak Judge Voet Ms. Levine Representative Webber Nays—0 The Chair then called for a vote on the motion to accept Recommendation #2 as amended to read as follows: “2. In order to properly inform the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Policy Commission, it is

necessary to have a robust centralized data collection system. The Commission believes that data must be collected from prisons, jails, probation departments, parole systems, community corrections,

Final CJPC Meeting Minutes September 2, 2015 Page 3

courts, juvenile justice, law enforcement arrest data, and specialty courts. The building of this system must meet the requirements of the Headlee amendment. Information in this system must be accessible by the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Supreme Court Administrators Office, and other pertinent entities. Based on this information, we respectfully encourage the legislature to review the data when formulating new criminal justice legislation.”

There was no further discussion. The motion prevailed by unanimous consent. Yeas—12 Senator Caswell Ms. Lightner Representative Guerra Ms. Moody Mr. Hilson Ms. Strange Mr. Kaminski Mr. Verheek Ms. Kubiak Judge Voet Ms. Levine Representative Webber Nays—0

The Chair noted that there is insufficient time to discuss Recommendation #3. VII. Commissioners’ Assessment of CSG Findings and Policy Options –Continuation of Discussion Started at July 1 CJPC Meeting There was no discussion of this agenda item. VIII. Overview of CJPC Statutory Charge There was no discussion of this agenda item. IX. Public Comment The Chair then asked if there were any public comments. John Lazet representing Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette provided comments that are attached to these minutes. There were no other public comments. X. Commissioners’ Comments Ms. Moody thanked the Chair for his leadership.

Professor Kubiak commented that she is not sure of the impetus of the recommendations and that perhaps an overview of the importance of what the goals of the Commission are in terms of recommendations might be helpful. The Chair began by noting that he recognizes that many of the Commission members have differing opinions and his goal is to find areas where there is agreement. He explained that his approach has been to send out any proposed recommendations and ask for feedback. Because he is trying to minimize the number of Commission meetings, he would appreciate feedback on information he distributes before the next meeting so there is sufficient time for everyone to review and analyze anything that is proposed. He noted that the next step is to take a look at the Supreme Court ruling and he will try to have someone at the next meeting to clearly explain the decision and what the State of Michigan options are going forward. Beyond that, he believes the Commission needs to start taking a look at recommendations on sentencing guidelines in terms of straddle cells and to talk about what is happening with the mentally ill. XI. Adjournment There was no further business. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m.

(Minutes approved at the October 7, 2015 CJPC meeting.)

September 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes Attachment Presentation by Kristen Pawlowski, Project Manager, Optum





September 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes Attachment Presentation by Jerry Jung, David Phillips, Alex Rasmussen, and Bob Bartlett








September 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes Attachment Public Comments from John Lazet

September 2, 2015

Comments to the Criminal Justice Policy Commission

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:

As Director of Crime Victim Advocacy for Attorney General Bill Schuette, I daily see and hear that the

reason we have criminal law is because we have victims, whether individuals, corporations, society, or

governments. If we didn’t have victims, I don’t think most people would care about crime. Having said

that, three brief comments today:

Please consider the reduction of victimization as one of the primary bases for any

recommendation;

Recidivism can only be measured by the perpetrators who are arrested. But the vast majority of

crime is never solved and therefore those perpetrators are not reflected in the data on re-

offending;

Please consider criminogenic needs when considering options to reduce re-offending.

Reducing victimization - when Attorney General Bill Schuette first brought me on board, he was very

clear in his comments to me: “Victims cannot be forgotten. Their voice must be heard.” In the four

years since that statement, over 1.6 million people in Michigan have reported being the victim of a

crimei. These numbers affect not only their quality of life, but also that of their families and their

communities.

Sadly, this is good news. For the four year period of 2000-2003, MSP data indicates that just under 4.3

million crimes were reported to law enforcementii. And the large majority of those decade old cases

remain unsolvediii, as do the large majority of reported crimes during the past 4 yearsiv. While the

numbers are too large for comprehension, the real life effects remain for millions of crime victims.

Michigan has far, far more crime victims than perpetrators. Their needs are pressing and often

overlooked, and the Commission is encouraged to keep the continued reduction of victimization as a

primary goal of its work and recommendations.

Recidivism – while there are several definitions in use, the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the

Department of Justice is moving towards a five year period after conviction/release, looking at new

arrestsv. But from a victim perspective, that definition cannot include the unknown numbers of

perpetrators of uncleared, or unsolved, offenses.

Consider the clearance numbers for Group A offenses as reported to the MSPvi:

2011 – 448,494 victims 552,409 incidents reported 127,454 incidents cleared




Every year the cumulative number of uncleared (unsolved) offenses grows, to where Michigan today lives

with millions of unsolved crimes. And as national longitudinal data from the BJS indicates that since

2000 only half of violent crime is reported, and less than 40% of property crime, our communities live

with a criminal element that is able to limit or even escape prosecutionvii. This situation is a major

reason for the Attorney General calling for more law enforcement officers on our streets, to assist in the

necessary effort to clear unsolved cases, and continue to reduce victimization.

As the Commission considers defining “recidivism” and looking at strategies to reduce recidivism, please

keep in mind that metrics of recidivism do not necessarily indicate that Michigan is modifying the

behavior of all criminal offenders. Additionally, research indicates, there is a population of serial

offenders who deserve a special focusviii.

September 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes Attachment Public Comments from John Lazet

Criminogenic needs – there is a national trend towards utilizing evidence-based

programming/practices identified as effective by research. The more important offender attributes that

are commonly identified as needing to be addressed are: antisocial cognitions, antisocial companions,

antisocial personalities, and marital/family relationshipsix. Regardless of offender placement, if

criminogenic needs are not met or not effectively addressed, resources will likely not be well utilized. I

would encourage the Commission to consider not just disposition status or placement, but also peer-

reviewed research on effective interventions that address criminogenic needs.

In closing, people are concerned about crime and punishment because of the harms inflicted on victims.

The system is structured to focus on defendants, but the community lives with victims and

consequences. As the Commission continues its deliberations and considers what data is needed, please

keep victims in mind, and have as one of your goals the reduction of victimization.

John Lazet, Director of Crime Victim Advocacy

Office of Attorney General Bill Schuette

i MSP annual Michigan Incident Crime Reporting:

2011 – http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/a_CrimesAtAGlance_391376_7.pdf

2012 – http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CrimesAtAGlance_433544_7.pdf

2013 - http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Annual_Crime_At_A_Glance_461464_7.pdf


while limiting the numbers to the same offenses reported in prior years

ii MSP annual Michigan Incident Crime Reporting:

2000 – http://www.michigan.gov/documents/glanc2000_17302_7.pdf

2001 – http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2001_UCR_glanc_49319_7.pdf

2002 – http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2002_UCR_Glance_76503_7.pdf

2003 - http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CrimeGlance_106230_7.pdf

iii MSP annual Michigan Incident Crime Reporting, clearance rates by agency and statewide. See:

2000, page 14 - http://www.michigan.gov/documents/AGLEO2000_17382_7.pdf

2001, page 14 - http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2001_UCR_agleo01_49352_7.pdf

2002, page 16 - http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2002_UCR_agleo02_76547_7.pdf

2003, page 13 - http://www.michigan.gov/documents/AgencyInfo_106247_7.pdf

iv MSP annual Michigan Incident Crime Reporting, statewide clearance rates:





v “While prior Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) prisoner recidivism reports tracked inmates for 3 years following

release, this report used a 5-year follow-up period. The longer window provides supplementary information for

policymakers and practitioners on the officially recognized criminal behavior of released prisoners. While 20.5% of

released prisoners not arrested within 2 years of release were arrested in the third year, the percentage fell to 13.3%

among those who had not been arrested within 4 years. The longer recidivism period also provides a more complete

assessment of the number and types of crimes committed by released persons in the years following their release.”

- “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010”, April 2014, page 1, accessible

at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf

vi MSP annual Michigan Incident Crime Reporting:





http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/a_CrimesAtAGlance_391376_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CrimesAtAGlance_433544_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Annual_Crime_At_A_Glance_461464_7.pdf


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/glanc2000_17302_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2001_UCR_glanc_49319_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2002_UCR_Glance_76503_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CrimeGlance_106230_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/AGLEO2000_17382_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2001_UCR_agleo01_49352_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2002_UCR_agleo02_76547_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/AgencyInfo_106247_7.pdf





http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf





September 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes Attachment Public Comments from John Lazet vii

2000-2010: “About 50% of all violent victimizations and nearly 40% of property crimes were reported to the

police in 2010. These percentages have remained stable over the past 10 years.” – “Criminal Victimization,

2010”, BJS, September 2011, page 1: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

2011: “In 2011, about 49% of violent victimizations were reported to the police.” And “From 2010 to 2011,

the percentage of property victimizations reported to the police declined from 39% to 37%.” - Criminal

Victimization, 2011”, BJS, October, 2012, page 8: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf

2012: “In 2012, 44% of violent victimizations and about 54% of serious violent victimizations were reported

to police.” And “From 2011 to 2012, the percentage of property victimizations reported to police declined

from 37% to 34%.” - Criminal Victimization, 2012”, BJS, October, 2012, page 4:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf

2013: “From 2012 to 2013, there was no statistically significant change in the percentage of violent and

serious violent victimizations reported to police (table 6). In 2013, 46% of violent victimizations and 61% of

serious violent victimizations were reported to police.” And “From 2012 to 2013, the percentage of property

victimizations reported to police increased from 34% to 36%.” - Criminal Victimization, 2013”, BJS,

September, 2014, page 7: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv13.pdf

2014: “No significant change was found in the percentage of violent crime reported to police from 2013 to

2014 (46%).” And “In 2014, 37% of property victimizations were reported to police.” - Criminal

Victimization, 2014”, BJS, August, 2015, pages 1 and 7: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf

viii For instance, see Table 2, “New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth”, Cohen and

Piquero, December 2007, found at: http://www.evidencebasedassociates.com/reports/New_Evidence.pdf

ix For example, the American Community Corrections Institute:

http://www.offendercorrections.com/content/?page=Criminogenic%20Needs






http://www.evidencebasedassociates.com/reports/New_Evidence.pdf

http://www.offendercorrections.com/content/?page=Criminogenic%20Needs

Documents

minutes - Michigancouncil.legislature.mi.gov/Content/Files/cjpc... · The Chair read Recommendation #1 and asked if there was a motion to accept the recommendation. Mr. Kaminski made